HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/1979 (2)PLANNING COMMISSION
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, June 13, 1979
Reel 78, Side 1, Tr. 1, 446 to End; Side II, Tr. 1, 001 to 460
Chairwoman vanTamelen called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
7:47 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Stewart, Carico, Lachenbruch, Dochnahl, vanTamelen
Absent: Commissioners Rydell and Kuranoff (both absences excused)
Also Present: City Manager Robert Crowe, City Planner/Engineer John Carlson,
Secretary Ethel Hopkins
CONSENT CALENDAR:
All items were removed from the Censent Calendar for separate consideration.
` Item 1 a): Abandonment and Relocation of Portion of Utility Easement to Conform
` to the Boundary Line of the property of D.A.Stevenson, 26989 Beaver Lane:
Commissioners had questions on the location of the property line, and
on exactly what was being abandoned with this request. As the property
owner was not available to discuss the request, it was continued to the
meeting of June 27.
Item 1(b): Abandonment of Emergency Access Easement for Lot 2, Tract 5762, Koo
Subdivision, Edgerton Road:
The location of the easement to be abandoned was indicated by Mr. Carlson
on a map transparency. Questions were asked on whether the path easement
would remain, and this was answered affirmatively by Mr. Carlson. The
hearing was opened to the public.
John Riley Engineer 66 Third Street, Los Altos, asked whether the path-
way easement would be reduced to a five toot minimum if the emergency
reeucede oeTentfine removed. He later clarified that he wished the easement
Staff noted that only the emergency access easement was being abandoned,
and that the easement for the pathway would not be affected.
Commissioners asked that the existing pathway easement be defined and
that the wording of the original pathway easement be provided for the
Commission, also that the width of adjoining pathways to Black Mountain
Road be researched. The matter was continued to the next meeting at the
request of the applicant's engineer Mr. Riley.
400 Item 2: Minutes of May 23: The Minutes were corrected on page three, third line
of the second motion to read "...before the building permit is issued...";
and on page four, fourth line of the next to the last paragraph on the page
to read "...and that the City Attorney render an opinion on whether interest
can be sold on only a portion of un -subdivided land."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 13, 1979
Page two
r+' CONSENT CALENDAR: (continued)
Item 2: (continued) MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by
Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl that the Minutes
of May 23 be approved as amended.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. SPECIFIC PLAN - CHAPARRAL WAY AREA, Request for Recommendation of Approval of
Negative Declaration and Specific Plan for C aparral WayArea:
Mr. Carlson referred Commissioners to his report dated June S on the subject request
and recommended that the Negative Declaration be approved. The public hearing was
opened and closed with no one addressing this aspect of the proposal.
MOTION SECONDED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and
seconded by Commissioner Carico that the Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan
for the Chaparral Way Area, Amended Land Use, Circulation and Conservation
Elements of the General Plan be recommended for approval.
Commissioners and Staff began a discussion on the proposed Specific Plan for
Chaparral Way. Commissioners expressed concern on the cul-de-sac connection to
Altamont Road required of the Horton property, feeling that this was an unfair
requirement for one subdivider to be required to improve the road to be used by
many adjacent property owners. Items of concern pointed out by Commissioners were
` Exhibit 7 and Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Circulation Element. It was pointed out
that while residents of the area did not want the road improved, the proposed plan
was to provide for development when it did occur. Staff also pointed out that the
Council would determine who would pay for road improvements, whether it would be
by assessment district or by individual subdivider. Another feeling expressed was
that the plan for the area development should have come much earlier in the area's
history, and possibly that the drainage recommendations should be separate from
the circulation recommendations. The hearing was opened to the public discussion.
Mrs. Horton, 505 Laurelwood, Santa Clara, pointed out that her property was designated
as area five on Exhi it ,and stated that the recommendations of the study were
unfair. She had been led to believe, she said, that she could have a private road
to her subdivision; questioned who would pay for road improvements to Altamont and
Chaparral Way; and noted that she had spent much time and money on drainage studies.
She noted that three Council members had adjoining properties, and could not under-
stand the road improvements proposed since no one in the area really wanted the road
improved.
The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Commission. Commissioner
Dochnahl recommended that the study be in two parts, one the drainage study and the
other the roads study. He recommended that the Land Use Element be implemented, but
that nothing be done on the traffic circulation. Commissioner Stewart recommended
that the Commission suggest that the City Council keep the Circulation in the area
as it is, but felt that the Commission should discuss the Land Use Element.
Discussion of the Land Use Element centered on Item 3. Commissioner Lachenbruch
felt that the second sentence of Item 3 should read: Impervious surfacing shall
be limited to 40% of an acre for each yield unit. He expressed concern with the
flat percentage of 25% suggested in Mr. Carlson's proposal, and felt that a Municipal
Code amendment on the percentage of impervious surface allowable on every lot, whether
C9
fir
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 13, 1979
Page three
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. SPECIFIC PLAN - CHAPARRAL WAY AREA: (continued)
steep or flat, keyed to lot yield as determined by slope density, was a more effective way
of dealing with allowable impervious surface. Commissioner Carico concurred that
the Municipal Code should be changed to reflect this method of determining the amount
of allowable impervious surface.* No concensus was reached on whether to change the
recommendation in Item 3, but instead Commissioners requested that Mr. Carlson
show how the lots in the Horton and Hillestad Subdivisions and other lots in the
area could be developed under the 25% impervious surface rule as proposed by Mr. Carlson,
and under the 40% impervious surface suggested by Commissioner Lachenbruch. No further
action was taken. On the motion of Commissioner Stewart, seconded by Commissioner
Lachenbruch the matter was continued to June 27. Commissioners were to contact
Staff if they had questions on the proposed plan.
*Wording suggested by Commissioner Lachenbruch for a possible ordinance revision was:
The minimum amount of impervious surface permitted on any parcel is equal to four -
tenths of an acre times the practical yield of that parcel as determined by the slope
density formula.
At 9:17 the Commission took a ten minute recess.
2. OFFICIAL PLAN LINE FOR THREE FORKS AND SOUTH FORK LANE, Request for Recommendation
of ppro va of Negative Dec aration and Officia Pan Line - Continued to June 27
3. LANDS OF HOM, File #TM 2084-78, Elena and Robleda Roads, John Riley, Engineer,
Request for Recommendation of Approval of Negative Declaration and Re -submitted
Tentative Map:
Mr. Carlson reviewed background on the re -submitted map as detailed in his staff
report for the June 13th meeting. He recommended that the Commissioners act on the
Negative Declaration.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl and
seconded by Commissioner Stewart to recommend for approval the Negative Declaration
for the Lands of Hom, File HTM 2084-78.
Commissioners began a review of the proposed conditions for the Tentative Map.
Commissioner Stewart also requested that these conditions be dated so as not to
confuse them with previously submitted conditions. The following amendments and
additions were made:
Condition 6.C: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenbruch to add
Condition 6.C: Paths shall be separatedfrom the street riaht-of-way
where possible by a minimum separation of six feet or greater from the
street travel way.
Conditions 7.A Deleted. Discussion on the deletion of this condition centered on
the need to obtain open fencing for the subdivision without committing
the subdivider to a specific kind of fencing.
Condition 7.A: Amended. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner
Lachenbruch and seconded by Commissioner vanTamelen to
(a) Delete Condition 7:A on the June 13th list of conditions
and (b) Change Condition 7.B to Condition 7.A and (c) to
amend the new Condition 7.A to read: All fencing along
public streets within the building setback lines shall be
submitted to the Site Development Committee for review and
approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 13, 1979
Page four
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
3. LANDS OF HOM, File #TM 2084-78: (continued)
Condition 7.A: (Amended) Vote on the Amendment to Condition 7.A was as follows:
AYES: Commissioners Lachenbruch, vanTamelen, Dochnahl
NOES: Commissioner Carico ABSTAIN: Commissioner Stewart
Conditions 8.A and 8.B: MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner
vanTamelen and seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch that
Conditions S.A and S.B be deleted.
AYES: Commissioners Carico, Lachenbruch, vanTamelen and
Dochnahl NOES: Commissioner Stewart ABSTAIN: None
Change numbering of subsequent conditions and delete all
references to Condition 8.A in Conditions 8.C, 8.D, and
8.E of the June 13th list of conditions.
Conditions 8.C, 8.D, and 8.E: Delete all references in these conditions to Condition
8.A, and re -number these conditions to Conditions 10.C,
10.1) and 10.E.
Considerable discussion occurred on when landscaping
proposed under the landscaping heading should be done.
L Commissioner Stewart felt that landscaping should be
required to screen the subdivision from the freeway,
but other Commissioners felt that landscaping should
be addressed at site development when residences are
proposed. Landscaping that was installed was to pro-
tect the subdivision from noise intrusion by freeway
traffic. Therefore, conditions addressing landscaping
were transferred to conditions on noise abatement.
Condition 9.A: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart to amend
Condition 9.A by deleting "Robleda Road" from this condition.
Discussion occurred on the kinds of improvements that would be done
on Elena Road. Mr. Carlson recommended that the Commissioners look
at the rolled curbs installed on the Country Way and Astra Estates
subdivisions before recommending further rolled curbs and guttersof
the Hillsborough type. He recommended instead a three foot wide rolled
curb. Commissioner Lachenbruch asked that lampblack be used to color
the concrete used for road improvements..
Condition 10.B: In the last line of this condition, correct the spelling of 'boundary'.
Conditions 10.C, 10.D, and 10.E: (Formerly Conditions 8.C, 8.D, and 8.E)
Condition ll.B: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend Condition ll.B by changing the first
line to read: 'Within six months after filing the final map, the
applicant shall install on..." (Motion to amend the condition was
made by Commissioner Stewart.)
Jean Struthers, Pathwa Committee, asked that the rolled curb not prevent bicyclists
frofi ditching t eir bikes when endangered by moving traffic in the area. She recommended
no curbs at all as a means of preventing accidents. Mr. Carlson, however, stated that
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 13, 1979
Page five
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
3. LANDS OF HOM, File #TM 2084-78: (continued)
bicyclists would have little difficulty getting over the wider curb he had recommended
to avoid dangers from traffic in the area of the subdivision.
MOTION SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenbruch
and seconded by Commissioner Carico to recommend approval for the Lands of Hom,
File #TM 2084-78, with conditions as amended.
4. LANDS OF BINDER, File #VAR. 7055-78, Catherine Court, John Riley, Engineer,
equest for Recommendation of A pproval of Variance for Tennis Court:
Commissioners were referred to the staff report of May 23 and Minutes for the
May 23 Variance and Permit Commission meeting for background on the above request.
Thereafter, the public hearing was opened.
Mel Hawley,Attorney for the Applicant, discussed the reasons the Planning Commission
might find to recommend approval of the request. These were: 1) that Dr. Binder's
property was isolated from surrounding properties, 2) all neighbors had signed the
request for variance, 3) that the court as proposed would not be a problem visually,
4)that a black vinyl fence would not be intrusive visually, 5) that no one would
be affected by the court since it was to be contiguous to a public road, and 6) that
the applicant was willing to cut the width of the court to 56' so as to cut the in-
40
trusion into the setback area to a minimum. Pointing out the extraordinary circum-
stances that existed, he noted that Dr. Binder's house had been built without his
having control over its location.
Staff and Commissioners discussed the fact that Dr. Binder had purchased an already
constructed home but that he had checked with the Town as to the possibility of
accommodating a tennis court or, the property. Mr. Carlson stated that Staff had
never indicated to Dr. Binder that he would be able to build the court. Commissioner
Lachenbruch referred the Commissioners to Resolution #694 adopted in 1973 stating
Town policy on the granting of variances for tennis courts. Commissioner Carico
noted the applicant's willingness to cut down the size of his court, to landscape,
and his proximity to Fremont Road as factors to consider in recommending approval of
the variance.
Victor Riches, 26200 Catherine Court, requested approval of the variance and noted
the problem of horses looking over the fence along the path area into the yards along
Fremont Road and the fact that Fremont is a main thoroughfare through the Town as
factors to recommend the granting of the variance. He pointed out that horses and
heavy traffic were more intrusive than a tennis court.
The public hearing was closed, and discussion continued among Commissioners on
whether the request should be denied in light of stated tennis court variance policy,
whether Town policy should be changed to reflect growing demand for tennis courts,
and whether it was wise to recommend a less than regulation size for the tennis court.
The following motion and address to the six conditions for the variance were made:
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenbruch and seconded
by Commissioner Carico to recommend approval of the request for variance for a six
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 13, 1979
Page six
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
4. LANDS OF BINDER, File #VAR. 7055-78: (continued)
foot (6') encroachment into the rear setback of the Lands of Binder, File #VAR. 7055-78,
to construct a tennis court of the dimensions of 56' x 118'. The request for variance
complies with Section 9-5.1108(b) of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
1. Special and extraordinary conditions that apply to this property are:
(a) It is triangular in shape, widening to the rear, which makes possible
the proposed use area at considerable distance from the major development
on the two neighboring properties; (b) The topography of the tennis court
area relative to the back property line where the variance is being re-
quested is favorable to screening the tennis court since the finished grade
of the court is two to three feet below the natural grade of that property;
and (c) A heavily used public road is adjacent to the back of the property,
the road is fenced and screened from the property, and there is no residential
neighbor in the region. The infringement to the setback is minimal, and the
applicant has taken steps to minimize this at some sacrifice to himself.
2. through 5. Responses to these conditions forgrantingof the variance
were affirmative and complied with the same findings of the
Variance and Permit Commission at their meeting of May 23.
L 6. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose
of Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code and the General Plan.
VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Stewart, Carico and Lachenbruch, NOES: Commissioners
vanTamelen and Dochnahl, ABSTAIN: None
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded
by Commissioner vanTamelen to delete Condition 3.A of the list of conditions on
the May 23rd staff report, and to add the remaining conditions to the variance
request for the Lands of Binder, File #VAR. 7055-78.
AYES: Commissioners Stewart, Carico, and Lachenbruch
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners vanTamelen and Dochnahl
Commissioner Stewart expressed concern on the size of the tennis court being recommen-
ded, stating that the Commission was increasing the hazard of injury by requesting a
less than standard size for the tennis court. He asked that a statement be sent with
the recommendation as a "Comment from the Planning Commission": Commissioner Stewart
requested that the City Council consider the distance between the proposed tennis court
wall and the adjoining house which is over 120 feet, and that they seriously consider
granting this applicant a variance so that he may have a full sixty foot wide tennis
court.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. LANDS OF PARNAS CORPORATION, File #TM 2065-77, Page Mill Road, Louis & Diederich,
Engineer, Request for Planning Commission Approval of Improvement, Driveway and
\+ Landscaping Plans:
Mr. Carlson discussed the applicant's compliance with Tentative Map conditions,
referring Commissioners to his June Bth memo regarding this compliance. The public
hearing was opened.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 13, 1979
[ Page seven
�
✓ OLD BUSINESS: (continued)
1. LANDS OF _PARNAS CORPORATION, File #TM 2065-77: (continued)
Ed Charlebois,Parnas Cor oration, Palo Alto, stated that his firm had had a study
one y an arc itect. His advice was that none of the proposed sitesfor the sub-
division could accommodate a tennis court.
Joe Louis, En ineer far the A licant, noted that field excavation would determine
w et er anyt ing s ou d e one on driveways for Lot 3 and 4.
Discussion among Commissioners and Staff on when driveways would be installed for
the subdivision resulted in Mr. Carlson's stating that the applicant would have
permission to have the street right-of-ways installed only. No implied
permission was being given for driveway installations.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and
seconded by Comnissioner Dochnahl that the Planning Commission had reviewed applicant's
completion of certain conditions on the checklist for the Lands of Parnas, File
#TM 2065-77, and were satisfied. The processing of the final map may proceed.
2. Settin of Date of Ad'ourned Meet in for the Use Permit for The Adobe Creek,
File CU 803 -79, Moody Road, Paul Nowack and Associates, Engineers:
It was determined that when material for the staff report was received, the
Planning Secretary would contact Commissioners as to a desirable date for a
public hearing. June 26 or 28 were mentioned as possible dates for the hearing.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Settinq of Date of Public Hearinqs for meetings of June 27, 1979: PASSED BY
CONSENSUS: That the following items be set for the public hearing of June 27:
Variance and Permit Commission: Lands of Closs, Files BSA 6100-77,
6101-77 and 6102-77
*Planning Commission: Annual Reviews of Conditional Use Permits -
1. Berry Hill Farms, File #CU 8028-77
2. Lands of Borello/Kuhaylan Arabian, File #CU 8033-78
3. Lands of Fremont Hills Country Club, File #CU 8010-76
*These items will be heard at the meeting of July 11, as the Environmental
Health and Fire Departments needed more time for their review.
2. Re�rt from the City Council Meeting of June 6, 1979 - Commissioner Rydell:
Commss ioner yde was absent from the FMming Commission meeting.
3. Information for the Chairwoman on Secondary Dwellings, Wet Bars, and Lighting:
Commssioner Carico reported tRat 1n the course of gat Bring material ter-6Fttnr-d4A
Ten on the above subjects, she had come across the conditions for 6/s7(7'
the Fensom Subdivision, Tract #5624, that stated that Lot 3 on this subdivision
could not be developed until the existing building on the lot had been removed.
L She noted, however, that the Planning Commission had given a recommendation of
�r approval for a secondary dwelling conditional use permit for the Lands of Tryon,
File #CU 8034-79, Lot 3, Tract #5624.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 13, 1979
L Page eight
V NEW BUSINESS: (continued)
3. Secondary Dwellings, Wet Bars, and Lighting: (continued)
The consensus of the Commission was that the City Attorney be consulted for a
legal opinion on whether the City Council and the Planning Commission could over-
turn conditions made at the time the subdivision was approved.
Commissioner Stewart requested that the Building Inspector be notified that no
permit shall be granted on Lot 3 for the Lands of Tryon until this matter is
clarified by the City Attorney.
4. Letterto the Cit Mana er re Access to Secondary Dwellings: It was the
consensus of t e Commission that a letter proposed by Chairwoman vanTamelen re-
garding access to secondary dwellings be signed and sent.
5. Site Development Packet: Chairwoman vanTamelen directed the Commissioners'
attention to additions information handed out at the meeting on Site Development
information. She noted that they had also been sent Site Development material in
their packet information, and that this material would be on the agenda for
discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
t There being no further new or old business, the meeting of the Planning Commission
`r was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ethel Hopkins
Secretary
v